If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that posts from new users are now moderated. If you have just joined this forum and post a new message it will be held in the moderation queue until a member of staff approves it. Please be patient and our staff will review your submission as soon as possible.

Re: unmarked

Is this sentence grammatically correct?
Is he the subject of the verb unmark?
Doesn't the sentence imply that he unmarked himself with the precise intention of heading the ball into the goal.

I've no idea what 'unmarked' means, but as for the structure of your sentence, it's passive:

1. He was unmarked by something or someone (passive)
2. Someone or something unmarked him (active)

In the passive sentence, the word 'He' has two functions: it's the structural subject and the semantic object. That is, 'He' is acted upon by someone or something. 'He' is not the actor. 'He' does not commit the action.

In the active sentence, the word 'him' is the object of the verb 'unmarked'. 'him' is acted upon by someone or something. It's the someone or something that acts out the action.

The trouble with the sentence is that one gets the impression that the guys in the other team wanted him to head the ball into the goal. They "unmarked" him so that he could head the ball into their own goal?
The infinitive in the sentence seems to function a bit like the one in:
He woke up to find his room in a mess.
Here, the infinitive does not imply intention.

The trouble with the sentence is that one gets the impression that the guys in the other team wanted him to head the ball into the goal. They "unmarked" him so that he could head the ball into their own goal?
The infinitive in the sentence seems to function a bit like the one in:
He woke up to find his room in a mess.
Here, the infinitive does not imply intention.

How about this?

He was (left) unmarked (by the opposing team) to head the ball into the goal.

Well, I think I have understood what is going on (FINALLY).
If I say:
"I left the door open for the cat to come in."
doesn't that mean that I wanted the cat to come in?
If I say:
"I was left there to watch the house."
doesn't that mean that the people who left me there wanted me to watch the house?

Now apparently if I say:
"They left me unmarked (open) to score a goal (against them)."
that does not mean that they wanted me to score a goal.
I guess the sentence is like:
A-That left me free to act.
in which "that" (persumably an event or a circumstance) doesn't have the intention of leaving me free to act.
In other words the to clause doesn't necessarily imply an intention, something I seem to have assumed unconsciously since it does most of the time.
Have I understood all this correctly?
In other words, neither of the sentences:
1-He was unmarked to score.
2-He was left open (unmarked) to score.
implies that they wanted him to score.

If I say:
"I left the door open for the cat to come in."
doesn't that mean that I wanted the cat to come in?

Yes, it does.

Originally Posted by navi tasan

If I say:
"I was left there to watch the house."
doesn't that mean that the people who left me there wanted me to watch the house?

Yes, it does.

Originally Posted by navi tasan

Now apparently if I say:
"They left me unmarked (open) to score a goal (against them)."
that does not mean that they wanted me to score a goal.

Yes, it does mean that. But people don't always say what they mean to say. I think that statement was a mistake. Better would have been: "They left me unmarked and I was thus able to score a goal against them." Or: "They left me unmarked, which meant I was able to score a goal against him."

People don't always say what they mean to say. I don't think they intentionally allowed that person to score a goal against them. Thus, I believe that statement was made in error.